Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalin Partenie


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. JForget 02:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Catalin Partenie

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No reliable secondary sources which discuss Catalin Partenie directly and in detail. The editor who disputed the prod claims the GNG does not require "directly and in detail", I humbly request that everyone contributing to this discussion read the "significant coverage" bullet point of the GNG. Explodicle (T/C) 15:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Andewz111 (no 'r') (nudge me) 15:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the relevant standard is not the GNG but WP:PROF. Someone selected by both CUP and OUP edit academic works on Plato, and similarly by Northwestern UP, and the author of numerous translations for Plato's major works, is obviously considered in their field as an expert in their subject.  DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you please link to your sources about Catalin Partenie? -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see that he edited "Plato: Selected Myths" for the Oxford University Press (evidence -- or, if you want easy verification of his editorship without detail, look here). There's a very uninformative link about him here and an only slightly less uninformative link here.  His CV is here. Am I convinced he's an authority on Plato?  Absolutely.  Am I convinced he's notable?  Not yet.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unreferenced article -- fails WP:BLP. Very few GS hits (h-index of 3), and editing a book does not establish notability: anyone can edit a book -- so fails WP:PROF also. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I haven't yet looked into wider notability, but I must point out that the statement that "anyone can edit a book" published by the Oxford University Press or the Cambridge University Press is utterly ridiculous. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  15:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment for the publications, see WorldCat.  DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Looking over Partenie's CV (pdf), I'm just not seeing the "more notable than the average professor" aspect. There's not much in the way of citation count, the academic rank is not terrifically high for somebody who got his doctorate 12 years ago, there do not appear to be any highly distinguished awards - just the usual run of grants, fellowships, and the like. He might very well get there with time, but not yet, I don't think.  Ray  Talk 15:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.